Clean Elections

Elections, in our federal system, are left to the states – part of the founders grand experiment of using states as little laboratories on the assumption that what was good for Mississippi may not be good for Montana, but that if Mississippi indeed had such a great idea that it was good for Montana then Montana and all the other states would surely follow suit.

So, elections are left to the states, and that’s why Indiana can require you to show a photo I.D. before voting, Oregon can allow you to vote by mail, and Florida can lose your vote and go to court to prove it never existed in the first place.

Washington, looking to other states as examples of what works and what doesn’t, has this year instituted a new style of voting: the top-two primary. This top-two system was recently imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court after years of Washingtonians’ obstinate refusal to admit that they usually vote either Republican or Democrat.

To allow Washingtonians to cling to their illusions of independence, the top-two primary makes political parties irrelevant, or at most a joke. It ensures that smaller parties like the Libertarians and the Greens will never, ever field a successful candidate. It encourages in-party in-fighting as the top-two in a “safe” district duke it out. It confuses voters, since the candidates can call themselves a member of a party without the party’s official approval. It encourages disrespect for the electoral system, since candidates can make up their own party – the “Yakvegas rocks party,” the “Party in my pants party”, the “Seattle secession party.”

Thirty years of experience with the top-two primary in Louisiana brought respected public servants to the fore, people like state Representative and 1991 gubernatorial candidate, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Every analysis of that race notes that the top-two system played a key role in allowing extremist candidates to rise to the top.

Of course, we think that could never happen here.

And now King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson is proposing public financing for county council campaigns. Spun as “voter-owned elections,” this idea too has been tried before. Portland adopted public campaign financing after an election where the candidate who spent the least amount of money won the office, but far be it for Portland to look at facts when they can enforce progressivism.

In Portland, the “clean campaign” or “voter-owned election” system was immediately abused by city council candidate Emilie Boyles, who faked the voter signatures needed to get public financing and then went on a spending spree with $145,000 in taxpayer funds. As the system has matured, it’s acted as an incumbent protection plan, because the incumbent who opts-out will almost always raise more than the lesser known challenger who opts-in, and in most political races, whoever has more money wins. Both of Portland’s current mayoral candidates have opted not to let the voters own them, instead seeking larger amounts of private money, which makes the “clean campaign” or “voter owned” system moot.

The more we try to reform and improve the election system, the more complicated and less clean it gets. If we really wanted clean elections, we would simplify the rules – not make them more complicated. Political parties should have the power to pick their nominee. Money is still considered constitutionally-protected speech, and people should be able to donate to their candidate of choice with full disclosure. Every citizen should be allowed one vote, recorded fairly and reliably, and that vote should count.